Lazy Journalism in Politics

I felt the need to write this piece in the wake of the news that Diane Abbott is stepping aside as Shadow Home Secretary for health reasons.

 https://pixabay.com/en/vote-word-letters-scrabble-1804596/

By many this is said to be the result of a mass loss of confidence in the Labour Party following the two epic gaffes made by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in two different interviews in almost as few days. Admittedly Corbyn and Abbott both made silly and highly undesirable blunders at a crucial time in British politics. Some people say that people are rightly questioning their allegiance to the party and whether they should vote for a party who doesn’t know how much what their manifesto policies will cost. For those people Abbot stepping aside is the correct, and only, thing for her to do in order to ensure the success of the Labour Party.

People across the length and breadth of the country are now asking of both Abbott, and the entire Labour Party, if they are unable to recall such an important figure as the cost of one of the policies they want to implement then how “strong and stable” (if I might recycle a phrase I heard somewhere) would they be at running the country? What people are forgetting is that the fact Corbyn and Abbott could not recall the exact figure of one of their policies when asked in an interview with immense pressure on them personally and with a lot at stake is irrelevant. Yes, it doesn’t look good, yes, that sort of error should be avoided when making a radio or television appearance but ultimately it doesn’t matter!

The simple fact is that their errors were pounced on by interviewers keen to humiliate the pair because it makes good viewing/listening. By not letting the matter drop for the moment, or not giving someone the time to respond to a question without being interrupted as Corbyn, for example, asked when he was being interviewed on Woman's Hour and by Jeremy Paxman, creates drama and draws immense public attention to their programme making their show more popular, thus giving them more security in a time of cuts and vast competition from online entertainment. Personally, it makes me question the integrity and intelligence of the interviewer. Could they think of no better questions to fill the short segment that they had been allocated?

Have you ever tried remembering a large amount of numbers? How about trying to learn the date of every battle in British history for instance? Off the top of my head I know that the Battle of Naseby was in 1645, but right now I can’t quite remember when the Battle of Edgehill was. However, if I was going to sit an exam paper on the Civil War I would find out first. So, yes, it doesn’t look good that neither of them knew the answer to the question that they were being asked at that time, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t check before sitting their exam paper, i.e., before implementing their policies. After all, they have a fully costed and approved manifesto so they must have some idea of how much their policies will cost. And before those policies would get implemented they would be brought in front of a full house to be debated, torn apart and finally voted on.

Focusing so deeply on simple human errors like theirs detracts from what’s important during an election. Policies. Yes, we should be asking how much policies cost and there should be an answer to that question (there is, it’s in their manifesto) as well as where that money is going to come from.

But ultimately the most vital aspect of an election is working out what each party stands for, not getting distracted by asking futile (albeit amusing) questions like ‘What’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?’ or ‘Who does the household chores?’. Causing drama and humiliating guests in an interview prevents the nation from getting to the heart of the policies that each of the parties is campaigning for. It’s a distraction from what actually matters. What matters is finding out what matters to the politicians who want your vote. Usually these policies are the reason why that person got into politics to begin with. Surely that should be at the core of any interview with a politician? We should be asking them what matters so that we, the citizens of this nation, can then ask ourselves whether what matters to that politician also matters to us. We should not be basing our vote on which politician performs the best publically. Surely someone’s opinion on equality, health, human rights and people, is more important than whether they look good aesthetically and can charm people with smoke and mirrors or whether they can distract the populace with frivolous ephemera?  

St Groan!

The National Theatre’s production of George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan 

As much as I love Gemma Arterton, not even her forceful performance of Saint Joan could rescue this lacklustre production of Shaw’s lesser known play. Whilst I admired the updating of the play to a corporate boardroom complete with large screen displays of stocks and shares, the modern dress costuming for the male ensemble against Joan in medieval costume oversimplified the themes of Shaw's play.

Shaw described Saint Joan as a “play without villains” and by dressing the characters like 1980s boardroom red-braced yuppies contrasting with Joan in traditional peasant garb, the director Josie Rourke simplifies the complexities of Shaw's drama by immediately indicating to the audience that Joan is something other than the men surrounding her, something saintly and pure. Of course by association that posits the surrounding men particularly Jo Stone-Fewings and Elliot Levey as the Earl of Warwick and Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais respectively as villains. By doing this Rourke minimises Shaw's message about society’s reaction to people of true individual genius.

Gemma Arterton’s portrayal is really good because it is so simple. She presents St Joan as doggedly dedicated and dangerously persuasive. The male cast argue that her persuasiveness is her danger. When they need her for this skill, they use her, but when they no longer require her to invoke the armies to fight for them they have to get rid of her before more women starting forgetting their places!

The rest of the cast (all male) were also strong. The Dauphin played by Fisayo Akinade was really a highlight of the play. His simpering, puerile boy prince was thoroughly enjoyable to watch and bounced wonderfully off Gemma Arterton’s driven, almost muscular St Joan. Jo Stone-Fewings, Elliot Levey and Rory Keenan were also capable in their roles but sadly the intimacy of the Donmar Warehouse was the best thing you can say about the production. 

There are better National Theatre and RSC productions running at the moment to see than this, which is a pity as Shaw’s play is so rich with theatrical potential.

An Ethereal Dystopia: Review of the RSC's Cymbeline 


Melly Still, the director of the RSC's latest production of Shakespeare's Cymbeline has created a dark, elfin dystopia, which highlights the rather topical issue of national identity already present in the original play. 

There are conflicts within this production as the dystopia seems to foreshadow a post-Brexit war for Britain whilst also aspiring to return to the past to a time of faeries, goblins and gnomes. The costumes certainly have a hint of the fay about them in their tattered, torn layers of tulle most notable in Innogen's costume, which makes a re-appearance later in the play stained with blood. Perhaps hinting at the death of Britain's fairy folk with the imminent war with Rome? This is most evident with Belarius' entrance with his stolen children, Guideria and Arviragus as they emerge singing and dancing from their badger-like sett of a home in the forest. However, the conflict between the desire to return to the past versus the threat of the oncoming future is enjoyable to watch.

Another innovative approach which Melly Still takes is to have a Queen Cymbeline (Gillian Bevan). The impact of having a Queen Cymbeline rather than a King Cymbeline is that there is a more tender relationship with Innogen (Bethan Cullinane). Despite Cymbeline's initial anger at the opening of the play because of Innogen's love of Posthumus played by the talented Hiran Abeysekera. Their young lust results in their secret marriage before Posthumus is banished into exile, with the hope of encouraging Innogen to marry Cloten, her step-brother, played with energy and comedy by Marcus Griffiths. 

Innogen becomes the true focus of this production (to the extent where it might have done well to be retitled Innogen instead of Cymbeline) and this is rightly so. The character is rich with potential. I particularly admired the bold choice to stage her self-discovery  to say it politely. The painfully dark scene wherein Jachimo (Oliver Johnstone) sets about to win his bet by stealing into her room hidden in a trunk and manipulating her vulnerable sleeping body is brilliantly staged with small capsules of humour thrown in to break the tension with much needed comic relief. Arguably the comedy here could be seen to be inappropriate, however I think it makes staging such an unpleasant violation bearable whilst still making it evident that his actions are criminal. Something which sadly still needs to be said today as issues regarding what constitutes rape are argued daily. What then happens to Innogen as a result of this defilement highlights the fragility of women's reputation today as much as in the 1600s. Something which Pisania (instead of Pisanio, another example of the gender exchanges made by Still) played by Kelly Williams makes all to evident when she receives Posthumus's letter instructing her to kill her mistress for her alleged adultery. 

This is a truly fresh look at Cymbeline, one really worth seeing because of its marriage of the play's universal issues of national identity and the role of women. The run is on until the 15th October in Stratford upon Avon before it moves to the Barbican in London from October 31 to 17th December. 

Kit Marlowe; the New King of the Psychological Thriller 
Review of the RSC's Dr Faustus 

Director Maria Aberg has, for me, transformed the legend of the man who sold his soul to the devil into a surreal, Steam Punk cabaret redolent of Gerald Scarfe's illustrations. The accompanying music also supports the re-figuring of the play as a rock opera. When interviewed, Aberg said that when she started working with the composer Orlando Gough they had discussed Tom Waits as the inspiration for the musical style wanting to create a "grotty, sexy quality" as well as "Duckie-style cabaret" as she felt like "it needed to be something fun, dangerous and seductive without being slick" (https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/feb/12/maria-aberg-rsc-stratford-doctor-faustus-sandy-grierson-oliver-ryan-christopher-marlowe).

The danger is apparent as soon as the lights dim with the lead actors Sandy Grierson and Oliver Ryan each lighting  a match at the start to determine who plays which character that night. The tension mounts as the flame crawls flickering to their fingertips. The fraught mood is sustained throughout the play even through the punk cabaret of the personified Seven Deadly Sins in their Dali-esque costumes. This breaks into a palpable sense of unease throughout the audience when the child spirit of Helen of Troy child emerges after Faustus has summoned her to him through Mephistopheles to be his paramour.

The Wittenberg scholars in their uniformal suits and matching bowler hats stalk menacingly through the performance punctuating the scenes with a reminder of Faustus' deadly deal and the lead actors, Grierson and Ryan, are excellent. The night I attended, the match had selected Grierson as the ambitious Dr Faustus and Ryan as the cunning, wheezing Mephistopheles, whose voice was surprisingly like Ren of Ren and Stimpy fame! The set was simple but effective and the intimacy of the play was enhanced by its appearance on The Swan Theatre's thrust stage.

Whilst the play is more about Dr Faustus as a man and his motivations than philosophical ponderings on divinity, the after life and God and the Devil, Aberg's production is a very personal and intimate examination of man's failings. She has teased open the already present human elements of the play so rather than a questioning of divinity being the last message of the play, it is instead a questioning of man's desire to be known, remembered and to be a success at all costs that remains with you far beyond the final curtain call.

Still Wicked! 

The Apollo Victoria,  London - 9th of April 2016

I have been wanting to see this production since I heard about it which now feels like forever ago! As I find adaptations fascinating, the idea of this production focusing on the backstory of Oz's Wicked Witch has had me intrigued for sometime. After seeing the production, I'm still intrigued! Whilst I appreciate that there will be many people who have seen this production already I still don't want to reveal any spoilers for anyone yet to see the show, so I'll just say that I thought that the conclusion of the plot was very clumsy and didn't seem to make sense when considered in tandem with the film. At one point the conclusion of the original film's plot is running side by side with the play so it is vital that the two plots do mesh together well. Sadly this was not the case! Despite this, Wicked is one of the best musicals I have ever seen!

I strongly recommend anyone and everyone to see this production! The musical talent is remarkable, the costumes look like something straight from a Jean-Paul Gaultier catwalk and the set is seemingly steampunk-inspired; a new look for a set but one that works really well in the context of the show.

The ensemble, despite pumping out so many performances a week for such a long time now, seems as fresh as a daisy and it genuinely feels like your performance might well have been the opening night! There is certainly no sense that anyone is getting stale, bored or complacent and Elphaba (Wicked Witch) played by Emma Hatton is amazing. That girl has a set of pipes!

I also adored the ditsy blonde Glinda the Good Witch played by Savannah Stephenson. And Oliver Savile looks very good in a tight pair of pants! Although I was expecting them to split embarrassingly revealing a pair of red polka dot pants at any point in his leaping around... The university where all of the core characters met was like a Hogwarts version of Oxbridge which was also very amusing! Definitely one to watch on a jaunt to London!

To Go or Not To Go? Hamlet at the RSC - Spring Summer 2016

Simon Godwin's production is certainly colourful and at times exuberant, but sadly a lot of it falls very flat. This might be because The National Theatre's startling production starring Benedict Cumberbatch is still so fresh in my mind from last year. Papa Essiedu's Hamlet is performed well and there are certainly moments of humour in his performance and I'm looking forward to seeing him in more, but what really troubled me was Ophelia. I'm so bored of seeing another presentation of a pathetically mentally inferior Ophelia. Why, oh why can't someone jump on the possibility of making her a strong, feminist character? Why in the 21st century with our obsession with adaptations has no one done an amazing world renown production focusing on Ophelia's story? Now that's what I'd go to see!

Natalie Simpson's Ophelia is poignant and tragic and tender, all the things that we expect Ophelia to be but there was nothing fresh in her characterisation. The only sense of innovation in this production was the relocation of the story to Africa. At times this really really worked, in the main when the Players arrived to perform at Elsinore but this shift could have been made much more of, particularly in the duel scene at the play's climax.

Why Godwin couldn't have put more twists like the romantic interest between Rosencrantz (James Cooney) and Guildenstern (Bethan Cullinane) I do not know. There is so much potential for excitement and variety with Hamlet and the RSC has the strength of cast, set, costume, you name it to wholly throw themselves at a new idea and run with it at 110 miles per hour to make it soar. I did love the sneaky students nearly getting caught by the King and Queen with their bong though! More of that please!

This is a production to see if you want a comfy, cosy adaptation of the classic story. Do not go expecting to leave reconsidering the themes of the play or Hamlet's plight. This play treads all too familiar ground, but admittedly it does do it rather well. Go for a fun night with friends, for a drink and chat, do not go to be dazzled by the genius of Shakespeare or the RSC.

Review of the RSC's Peter and Wendy

Playwright Ella Hickson's adaptation of J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan is much closer to the novel than the pantomimes, Hook starring Robin Williams and the other Hollywood/Disney films that have preceded it. There must have been many people in the audience who have never read the novel and whose sole experience of the story is from the Disney film - like partner Tom - as such they would have been surprised by  the restoration of the focus on to the novel's key themes of death and the death of childhood. Whilst this might have been a surprise, it would have been a very pleasant one! It is a fantastic production with a truly modern take on the classic children's story. It's also far more obviously feminist than the recent National Theatre production of Jane Eyre that I reviewed in my last blog. 

The, I hesitate to say, feminist approach to this production meant that the Darling's mother became a suffragette in response to the death of one of her sons and Wendy (Mariah Gale) loudly proclaimed the injustice of her being forced to grow up before her brothers. She loudly voiced how unfair it was that she was being encouraged into the stereotypical role of helpmeet and maternal guide from a very young age whilst her brothers carry on careering around playing soldiers. The reason that I hesitated to say 'feminist' was because really the play dances around the subject at times, however it does make concerted efforts to show the pressure of the conservative image of feminist on girls and women alike. The Darling's suffragette mother (Rebecca Johnson), for instance, discovered the political movement when she was grieving the death of her child as she found the inane chatter of polite ladies' society too much to bear afterwards.

The performances of the central cast are also remarkable. Peter Pan was played by a commendable actor, Rhys Rusbatch, whom I hope to see treading the boards of the RSC stage again soon. Hook (Darrell D'Silva) and Smee (Paul Kemp), it is suggested at times, have an hilarious homoerotic love affair! Tink is played as a feisty, voluptuous Brummie by Charlotte Mills adding moments of pathos and comedy throughout the performance. 

And the set ... Oh, the set... This is truly the masterpiece designs that make the RSC remarkable. Colin Richmond has really outdone himself with this visual, technological treat. I was at all times left speechless by the abilities of this set! 

I'm sad to see this production come to an end, but it is high praise to the RSC that the original production of Peter Pan in the Autumn/Winter 2013/14 period was so popular that it called for this second production this season. As such, it will be a long time before another adaptation of Barrie's beautiful, thought-provoking, coming of age story next appears in the theatre.  However, it would be great to see another classic children's story adapted for the RSC for the Autumn/Winter season this year or in 2017, who knows maybe we'll see a feminist Jungle Book maybe or Alice in Wonderland.